D&D (2024) The impending mess that will be backwards compatibility

[Vaalingrade]

Right. So, does "the community" need to be involved?

I mean we're the ones that got them to start using 5e instead of just D&D, so we have some influence as a group.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So now we're differentiating PHs by cover art? But several of them have had the same text with different art.

This would have been so much easier if they just called different books by different names.

I think you will be able to tell the difference... I have faith in you and all those younger people too.

I am still not getting why some few people are upset.
Calling it differently than PHB and inventing new classes would be a terrible decision.

They tried that with 4e essentials... did not work as intended.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

much past due... but WotC is afraid to do anything new for some reason

Minus all the new stuff they are doing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

what do you mean by ‘now’

Player's Handbook (4e) - Wizards of the Coast | Dungeons & Dragons 4e | Dungeons & Dragons 4e | Dungeon Masters Guild

Player's Handbook (4e) - The first of three core rulebooks for the 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons® Roleplaying Game.The Dungeons & Dr

www.dmsguild.com

This book was clearly identified as the 4e PH by WotC at the time, and more importantly was not supposed to be thought of as the same book as any previous PH.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think anyone should claim it won't be until we see the covers of the books. "50th Anniversary" on the cover would differentiate it without claiming it as a new "edition", for example.

Even WotC statements at this time should be viewed as statements of current intent, rather than promises about what will be, in stone.

I can do that, but I still don't get why WotC's current intent would be to create a new PH, with a significantly changed and completely rewritten ruleset, and deliberately not distinguish it from the previous version, with which it is supposed to be backwards compatible but most certainly not the same book.

Some here have compared it to a supplement rather than a new edition. Don't supplemental products usually go by different names from the core book of the game for which they are a supplement?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think you will be able to tell the difference... I have faith in you and all those younger people too.

I am still not getting why some few people are upset.
Calling it differently than PHB and inventing new classes would be a terrible decision.

They tried that with 4e essentials... did not work as intended.

I don't know. I rather liked Essentials, and thought it worked beautifully. If they had released it earlier in the cycle I might have kept playing 4e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Minus all the new stuff they are doing.

I see the new books as "thinking outside but pressed right up against the box", in terms of change. Enough to notice and be annoyed by if you don't like it, not enough to really address 5e's potential problems.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

This book was clearly identified as the 4e PH by WotC at the time, and more importantly was not supposed to be thought of as the same book as any previous PH.

It’s not labeled 4e PHB the 3e PHB was also not labeled that way, they have always just been called the PHB.

 

[the Jester]

Not usually with the .5's -- they've universally been a step down unless you consider post SW SAGA 3.5.

Now that's a hot take!

I disagree hard, here- both 3.5 and Essentials were big improvements on the base 3rd and 4th editions.

I'll give you 2e, assuming you're talking Skills & Powers et al, and 1e, assuming you are talking about Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s not labeled 4e PHB the 3e PHB was also not labeled that way, they have always just been called the PHB.

But both were referred to as their appropriate editions PH at the time, and 3.5 was in its time clearly differentiated from 3.0.